[Samba] ftp 8x faster than samba

Robert Adkins radkins at impelind.com
Thu Aug 31 13:01:47 GMT 2006

I have just been doing some more reading (Google: Samba Test Results) on 
benchmarking results and it looks like Samba is capable of performing 
upwards of 2.5 times faster then Windows 2003, especially as the number 
of clients begins to ramp up in quantity.

If you aren't getting those kind of results with direct comparisons 
between Windows File sharing and Linux File sharing on the same 
hardware, then I believe your problem is wholly unrelated to Samba.

Also, from my understanding of the differences between how FTP and both 
Windows and Samba file sharing functions, you will never receive the 
kind of speeds from either Windows or Samba that you can through FTP.

Robert Adkins

Robert Adkins wrote:
> Yoink wrote:
>> Robert Adkins wrote:
>>> Yoink wrote:
>>>> This gigabit connection should always be performing as it does 
>>>> under ftp, any advice?
>>>    I copied a 600MB file from my workstation to our Samba server and 
>>> it took approximately two minutes.
>>>    I copied the same file from the Samba server to my workstation 
>>> using the Command prompt and it took roughly 1 minute 30 seconds.
>> Well I should get -25% performance too, no? Mine is more like -400%.
>    My test was very unscientific and it is very likely that copying 
> the file took exactly the same amount of time whether I used the 
> command line or the Windows GUI. I know nothing of the hardware, 
> installation setup and other testing variables you have in place, such 
> as the testing environment, in order to be able to answer your question.
>    Again, I suggest that you test like things with like things, test a 
> Windows server's file sharing and then Samba file sharing. Test FTP on 
> a Windows server and then FTP on a Linux server and do this on a 
> controlled network where only the workstation and the server are 
> connected via one hub that has no other network connected to it. That 
> way you can more clearly determine which is faster.
>    I understand that there has been significant testing performed like 
> the above and the last time I checked, which was more then a few years 
> ago, Samba performed musch faster then Windows for file sharing. I do 
> recall reading a more recent article (maybe 2 years back) that 
> suggested Windows Server 2003 same closer if not equal to Samba in 
> file serving speed.
>    You would also have to look at other factors, such as the 
> underlying file system used on your server. I have been assuming you 
> are using Linux with Samba, if that is the case you could be using a 
> variety of different file systems for your Linux partitions.
>    For example, if you are using ReiserFS, then you would see a marked 
> increase in reading/writing and subsequently file sharing for 
> relatively small files in, I believe, the sub-32kb range as ReiserFS 
> is tuned for sharing many small files very quickly. However, ReiserFS 
> (At least the last version I was using) wasn't great for serving large 
> files, like the 700MB test file you are using.
>    From what I know of EXT3FS, it is a well rounded file system that 
> is neither particularly fast nor particularly slow in serving files of 
> various sizes. It is a good middle ground file system and the one that 
> I primarily use on my servers and other Linux installations.
>    Beyond that, there are numerous other factors that can lead to a 
> slowdown in file sharing speeds, which is something that I am hardly 
> an expert in determining. So, I am posting this back to the list, 
> perhaps someone there will be able to better advise you towards what 
> to look into.
>    Regards,
>    Robert Adkins

More information about the samba mailing list